Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 70373 

entities during rulemaking. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which might 

be small entities: None. Due to the fact 

that the bridge has been a fixed bridge 

for 6 years, this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

3. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520.). 

4. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

5. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

7. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

8. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

9. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

10. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

11. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

12. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

13. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) of § 117.751 to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.751 Shark River (South Channel). 

The draws of the S71 Bridge, mile 0.8, 

and the Railroad Bridge, mile 0.9, both 

at Avon, operate as follows: 

(a) The bridges operate as one unit. 

The owners shall provide signal systems 

so connected that the operator of either 

bridge may simultaneously notify the 

operator of the other bridge. The 

operator of the first bridge to be passed 

shall be responsible for observing the 

approach vessels, for receiving and 

acknowledging signals, and for 

coordinating the opening of the other 

draw. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 25, 2012. 

Steven H. Ratti, 

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28127 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 386 

[Docket No. 2012–8 CRB Satellite COLA] 

Cost of Living Adjustment to Satellite 

Carrier Compulsory License Royalty 

Rates 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

70374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Program Suppliers and Joint Sports Claimants 

comprised the Copyright Owners, while DIRECTV, 

Inc., DISH Network, LLC and National 

Programming Service, LLC, comprised the Satellite 

Carriers. 

2The most recent CPI–U figures are published in 

November of each year and use the period 1982– 

1984 to establish a reference base of 100. The index 

for October 2011 was 226.421, while the figure for 

October 2012 was 231.414. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

announce a cost of living adjustment 

(‘‘COLA’’) of 2.2% in the royalty rates 

paid by satellite carriers under the 

satellite carrier compulsory license of 

the Copyright Act. The COLA is based 

on the change in the Consumer Price 

Index from October 2011 to October 

2012. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2013. 

Applicability Dates: These rates are 

applicable for the period January 1, 

2013, through December 31, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist. 

Telephone: (202) 707–7658. Email: 

crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

satellite carrier compulsory license 

establishes a statutory copyright 

licensing scheme for the retransmission 

of distant television programming by 

satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. 119. 

Congress created the license in 1988 and 

has reauthorized the license for 

additional five-year periods, most 

recently with the passage of the Satellite 

Television Extension and Localism Act 

of 2010, (‘‘STELA’’), Public Law 111– 

175. 

The Copyright Royalty Judges adopted 

as final the rates for the section 119 

compulsory license for the period 2010– 

2014 after publication in the Federal 

Register of the rates, as proposed by 

Copyright Owners and Satellite 

Carriers,1 yielded no objections. See 75 

FR 53198 (August 31, 2010). Section 

119(c)(2) requires the Judges annually to 

adjust these rates ‘‘to reflect any changes 

occurring in the cost of living 

adjustment (for all consumers and for all 

items) [‘‘CPI–U’’] published * * * at 

least 25 days before January 1.’’ Id. 

Today’s notice fulfills this obligation. 

The change in the cost of living as 

determined by the CPI–U during the 

period from the most recent index 

published before December 1, 2011, to 

the most recent index published before 

December 1, 2012, is 2.2%.2 Rounding 

to the nearest cent, the royalty rates for 

the secondary transmission of broadcast 

stations by satellite carriers for private 

home viewing and viewing in 

commercial establishments are 27 cents 

and 54 cents per subscriber per month, 

respectively. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 386 

Copyright, Satellite, Television. 

Final Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, part 386 of title 37 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 386—ADJUSTMENT OF 

ROYALTY FEES FOR SECONDARY 

TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE 

CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 386 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 119(c), 801(b)(1). 

■ 2. Section 386.2 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and 

(b)(2)(iv) as follows: 

§ 386.2 Royalty fee for secondary 

transmission by satellite carriers. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(iv) 2013: 27 cents per subscriber per 

month; 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) 2013: 54 cents per subscriber per 

month; 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 19, 2012. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28507 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 9 

RIN 2900–AO30 

Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance—Stillborn Child Coverage 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

(SGLI) regulations in order to provide 

that, if a stillborn child is otherwise 

eligible to be insured by the SGLI 

coverage of more than one 

servicemember under SGLI dependent 

child coverage, the child would be 

insured by the coverage of the child’s 

SGLI-insured biological mother. This 

final rule will provide consistency in 

payment determinations involving SGLI 

stillborn child coverage. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective December 26, 2012. 

Applicability Date: This final rule will 

apply to claims for SGLI proceeds filed 

on or after December 26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica Keitt, Attorney-Advisor, 

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional 

Office and Insurance Center (310/290B), 

P.O. Box 8079, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19101, (215) 842–2000, 

Ext. 2905. (This is not a toll free 

number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 31, 2012, VA published in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 4734) a 

proposed rule to provide that, if a 

stillborn child is insured by the SGLI 

coverage of more than one 

servicemember, the SGLI proceeds 

would be paid to the child’s SGLIinsured mother. We provided a 60-day 

public-comment period, which ended 

on April 2, 2012, and received 

comments from five individuals. 

Section 1967(a)(4)(B) of title 38, 

United States Code, prohibits an 

insurable dependent who is a child from 

being insured at any time under the 

SGLI coverage of more than one 

member, i.e., more than one SGLIinsured parent. If a child is otherwise 

eligible to be insured by the coverage of 

more than one member, under section 

1967(a)(4)(B) the child is insured by the 

coverage of the member whose 

eligibility for SGLI occurred first, 

‘‘except that if that member does not 

have legal custody of the child, the 

child shall be insured by the coverage 

of the member who has legal custody of 

the child.’’ Congress, however, did not 

indicate whether this provision is 

applicable to a stillborn child. VA 

therefore proposed to fill the gap left by 

Congress subjecting the coverage of a 

stillborn child to the limitation that an 

insurable dependent who is a child may 

not be insured at any time by the 

insurance coverage of more than one 

member. We further proposed that a 

stillborn child of two SGLI-covered 

parents will always be insured under 

the mother’s coverage because state laws 

do not address legal custody of a 

stillborn. 

Two commenters wrote in support of 

the proposed rule. Three of the 

commenters raised issues regarding the 

proposed rule. 

One commenter stated that the rule 

does not take into account a case in 

which a stillborn child’s parents are the 

same sex and urged flexibility in the 

rule so as not to prejudice homosexual 

couples. The premise of this comment, 

that a stillborn child could have parents 

of the same sex, is mistaken. VA has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES